







'““ ... V "’ .y... °^. °'° ... 


>i 






V<v 

, i. -z^- ^y o 

'V ^ ^ * .V ®° 

O, ^ < * • 

■i . 

o cS'Jiy. -WA^^ 


0 




AurS 
^ 0 



-r O * ,X*^v^XV K ^ « 

•P <N <1 

■»b V^ 

’ ... '^.>. *'■’■ ^^'^ ... 



_l 




ia 



-<# 


-'S: 


TB 


» 

IhJSu ^ hk.' 'P 

^ ^ <1 r o ^ 

^ * <V ^ ^ O N 0 

▼ ^ V « o P 































^ A'' ^ 



o -V 





y^ \A 


-, ••■■■••/'■’° V'--- *- 
'■ " .'■ .•;«i-X ,/•• 







- > V < 

■" t<, »'■ 

'A <,*'..** . 0 ^ ^ '<...>■ A 



»,o’' O'^ 

. 0 '^ ..•», % v^ 


•6 xV ^ 

^ c ° V» -» 

^S^oWn'^^ 

P' o 



* ‘'rr- 

^ \> 


"- : 
0"^ . ‘-'/ ^ "^o 



G 


o 

. .V 

/ ^ >• 

' 0^ '^o -o\;- A 

-^i- c°’^ . V^ ’ °'^ ‘ ° ” ° 


* 0 ^ 



O N O ' X^ 9 ( t * 

.'T x<5 

» AA 


c, 

■» ^ 



cP vP 

‘ , 0 ^ 'O. . « .A. 
















































AND 


ELECTORAL REFORM. 


A REVIEW 

OF 


EECENT PUBLICATIONS ON THAT SUBJECT. 


“ If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the 
unhmited authority of the majority, which may, at some future time, urge the minorities to 
desperation, and oblige them to have recourse to physical force. Anarchy will then be the result, 
but it will have been brought about by despotism.” “ Mr. Hamilton expresses the same opinion in 
the Federalist^ No. 51. Mr. Jefferson has also thus expressed himself, in a letter to Mr. Madison, 
March 15, 1789.” — De Tocqueville, Chap. 15. 



BOSTON: 

PRENTISS & DELAND, BOOK AND JOB PRINTERS, 
No. 40, Congress Street. 

18G3. 














EEPEESENTATIVE GOVEENIENT 


AND 


ELECTORAL REFORM. 


The North-American Review (No. 196, July, 1862,) in 
a critique on Mill’s able treatise on Representative Gov¬ 
ernment, after quoting largely from the work, remarks 
‘‘ that the great importance of the subject is sure to 
render it, at no great distance of time, a matter of practi¬ 
cal discussion; ” a prediction which seems about to be 
verified, even amid the throes and struggles which con¬ 
vulse the nation in this its hour of trial; patriotic hearts 
and minds, undismayed by the storms which threaten with 
destruction the ship of state, are investigating the causes 
which have produced this perilous conjuncture, and are 
endeavoring, like good pilots, to trace out a chart by 
which a safer course may hereafter be steered. 

Among the numerous publications to which our present 
national crisis has given rise, none is more apropos to the 
times than a pamphlet which has recently appeared in 
Philadelphia, entitled “ The Degradations of our Repre¬ 
sentative System,” by J. Francis Fisher, in which the 
author has exposed, with a masterly hand, the evils which 
afflict the body politic, and suggested the remedies which, 
judiciously elaborated and applied, may restore the nation 
to its pristine vigor and integrity. 



4 


“ Whatever,” says Mr. Fisher, ‘‘ may be the result of 
the bloody war now raging, it is presumed there is no one 
who does not see that it has already given such a shock to 
om’ republican institutions that they will require great 
and important modifications, if not a reconstruction from 
their very foundation. Many changes must be made, both 
to give the requisite strength to the general Government, 
and to prevent that strength being abused ; to consolidate 
the restored or diminished Confederacy, and at the same 
time to save our local institutions, our personal liberties, 
from extinction; above all, to guard us, if possible, from 
the evils we have experienced in our system of election 
for national offices, especially that of President of the 
United States; evils which will be greatly augmented in 
the inevitable consequence of the present war, — the 
enormous military power of the executive.” 

“ In the happy days of the past our countrymen seemed 
determined to shut their eyes to the rapid decay of public 
virtue in their representatives, whether in executive or 
legislative office; and because our prosperity was un¬ 
checked, wealth every day rewarding industry and inge¬ 
nuity, and our population swelling with unprecedented 
speed, they were disposed to set all this to the credit of 
our admirable system of government; fondly believing 
that if their legislatures were corrupt and their chief 
magistrates the tools and slaves of party, it was the 
strongest proof of the vigor of our republican institutions 
which could bear it all; not perceiving that in the 
degeneracy of our public men and the debased tone of 
public morality, we were daily losing the virtues which 
are the only true supports of democracy, — that the 


5 


framework of our institutions was rotting away, the 
foundations of our republic undermined, and the real 
buttresses of liberty destroyed. It is only now, when civil 
war has almost shaken the whole fabric to pieces, when 
our country is overwhelmed with difficulties of all sorts, 
and humiliated by defeats, and still more by the causes of 
them, that doubt and dismay are spreading throughout the 
land, and those who always confided in democracy begin 
to doubt its ultimate success.” 

Before presenting his plan of reform, Mr. Fisher por¬ 
trays, with a truthful and unsparing hand, the abuses, 
dangers, corruptions, and degradation of our representa¬ 
tive system, commencing with 

“OUR SYSTEM OF CAUCUS AND PRIMARY ELECTIONS, 

by which party nominations are managed, and by which 
a few men, who devote themselves to politics by 
profession (men little known beyond their own sphere, 
and very little respected there), organize all the 
initiatory steps towards a nomination of candidates, and so 
skilfully manage their forces by a system of secret under¬ 
standing and pledges, that it is impossible for any one to 
be presented to the public as a candidate, except the one 
selected by them in secret conclave. This is the inevita¬ 
ble result of our system, and it may be asserted, that it is 
not the consequence of the neglect of these primary 
meetings by those who have the largest interest at stake, 
and who, by their intelligence, education, and social 
standing, ought to have most weight among their fellow- 
citizens. Their attendance at these meetings might have 


6 


a sort of ephemeral success, but it would only result in 
carrying the machinery a little more out of sight, and 
perhaps rather aggravating the evil.” 

“ These primary party meetings, being governed in 
nothing by law or principle, but controlled entirely by 
party tactics, and worked for the sole benefit of those who 
manage them, would, as soon as they failed to attain the 
ends of these professional politicians, be sure to be packed 
by men selected in secret places, and we should again be 
forced into the old track, be obliged to submit to the 
dictation of a class of men the least trustworthy, who have 
thus juggled out of sight all but a single candidate, whom 
we must take, or be sure of a defeat by our opponents.” 

“ This system of nomination has the additional disastrous 
efiect of disgusting a large number among our most re¬ 
spectable and intelligent citizens. They find that both 
parties have presented for their suffrages men whom they 
cannot trust — perhaps know to be dishonest — and vote 
for neither. This, again, gives great advantage to the 
political managers, and often throws the election into the 
hands of an actual minority, even where there are only 
two candidates in the field.” Of 

PARTY MANAGEMENT 

in our legislative halls, we have the following true 
picture: — “ The numbers constituting the Assembly 
are, of course, governed by a party majority, which 
majority is again controlled by a majority of their own 
party members, generally the most violent and extreme 
of all. In this country we have no independent middle- 


7 


men in our legislative assemblies, no centre-right and 
centre-left, ready to check extreme measures either of 
government or opposition. The leaders of the party carry 
everything — none dare resist. An independent member 
is impossible. This is the necessary consequence of om' 
American system, and the result is, an oligarchy the worst 
and most unprincipled of all, — an oligarchy of dema¬ 
gogues, in which a certain show is made of carrying out 
popular views and wishes, but these views and wishes are 
the very suggestions of their leaders, who well know how 
to blind their constituents and stimulate their passions, 
and who, by the fiction of representing a majority, impose 
the weight of force and terrorism of numbers, and often 
carry legislative measures which have the reluctant assent 
of the more honest and moderate of their colleagues, and 
which, if presented to the unbiassed judgment of the con¬ 
stituents of their own party would probably be reprobated 
and rejected.” 

He next calls attention to the fact of the fiuctuations of 
parties, producing 

“A WANT OF STABILITY IN THE POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT,” 

observing that “ the party in the ascendant is sure, 
however small its preponderance of votes, to carry out 
their programme to the last letter; and this is some¬ 
times the most politic course for those who are ready to 
sacrifice their country to the success of their party; but it 
is nevertheless ditficult to preserve this ascendancy beyond 
the current term of office; for the party defeated at the 
polls, swollen by the addition of the discontented members 


8 


of the successful one, or those of a third division, previ¬ 
ously voting on neither side, or for a third candidate, is 
often quite sufficient to displace the small majority before 
the next election. The consequence is a new scramble 
for office and spoils, and very often an entire revolution in 
measures, in which stability of purpose is almost as 
important as a wise financial or commercial policy.” 

But of all the evils of this unstable possession of power, 
Mr. Fisher denounces as the most obnoxious, a party 
measure, peculiar to this country, called — 

“ GERRYMANDERING, 

than which a more unprincipled scheme, and one 
more opposed to the true principles of democracy, never 
was imagined; its object being so to arrange the electoral 
districts as to neutralize the votes of the opposing party, 
massing their votes together in some places where their 
ascendancy cannot be disputed, detaching counties, town¬ 
ships, or wards, from their natural connection, to destroy 
an existing majority, or to create it wherfe wanted to 
maintain party ascendancy; and all this without any re¬ 
gard to territorial connection, common interests, or any 
other consideration but the control of votes.” Mr. Fisher 
adverts, in the next place, to 

THE EVILS OF A THIRD PARTY, HOLDING THE 

BALANCE OF POWER. 

“ It is not easy,” he says, “ to estimate the mischief 
which the existence of a third party in the state can 
do, when the elections depend on simple majorities or 


9 


pluralities. Its leaders may be honest, and offer their 
votes to the party second in numerical strength, 
provided it will adopt their social or political creed 
and shibboleth; or, they may make a bargain for 
themselves, and a share of offices and the spoils of 
victory may be a part of their conditions; or, if 
the minority party cannot make the sacrifice, or rather 
advocate what would revolt all the intelligent and honest 
men of their political communion, the plurality without 
any such sacrifice, may secure the victory by encouraging 
a third nomination, which will work equally well for their 
success, and the arrangement of such a bargain may defy 
detection.” 

BRIBERY 

next comes under discussion. “ How much is paid for 
individual votes,” observes Mr. Fisher, “ only those 
who manage elections can tell. It cannot be supposed 
that bribery, in this form, is practicable to any great 
extent. But there is a form of corruption much more 
injurious and iniquitous, because the price stipulated is to 
be paid by the successful candidate in the form of office or 
lucrative contracts to those who have brought theh: influ¬ 
ence to bear on the election. There is a class of men in 
every populous district, especially in our cities, themselves 
of no great consideration, but in positions which give them 
large influence over a number of the humbler inhabitants. 
These men have it in their power to offer to either candi¬ 
date a certain number of votes, and so sure are they of 
their commodity, that when there is a number of offices 
to be filled at an election, they have been known to traffic 


2 


10 


them to a candidate on one ticket, for as many votes for 
an office on another ticket, in tlie success of which they 
felt more interest; and of such uncertain domicile is this 
class of voters, that those who contract to supply them 
can often transfer a score or more of them from one 
electoral district to another, on the eve of an election. It 
is needless to enlarge on the venality of this class of vote- 

brokers.This class of men can indeed only 

find an occupation in the large centres of population. 
There is, however, another class of working politicians, 
both in to^vn and country, whose services must be secured. 
The orator of the tap-room, the needy lawyer of the 
county-town, who spends his evenings at the store or 
tavern, doing the work of the candidate and party, de¬ 
serves his reward and obtains it. He is indispensable 
under the present system, and may be a very honest man.” 
We shall now see how another party weapon — that of 

“ BULLYING,” 


is often resorted to. The custom of voting at the 
same time for a number of offices is productive, says 
Mr. Fisher, of intimidation as well as bribery, viz. 

“ In framing these tickets, especially for county and cor¬ 
poration offices, it cannot be pretended that the nomination 
is made with reference to the fitness of the persons proposed. 
It is a pure bargain among the leading managers of the 
party, and, in consequence, the greatest pressure is brought 
to bear on the electors to give success to the whole ticket; 
and he is denounced as a traitor to his party who ventures 
to scratch from his ticket the name of a man he knows to 



11 


be dishonest, even if the office he aspires to be one of the 
largest pecuniary trust.” 

This system of bullying is worse than bribery. The 
tyranny of opinion is often supported by violence : the chief 
end of preliminary ward meetings in our large cities is to 
organize the party forces ; and the great public assemblages, 
or mass meetings have no other conceivable object than 
to impose the overpowering influence of numbers, — the 
worst but often the most successful of arguments.” 

THE CORRUPTION OF THE PRESS 

elicits the following scathing remarks. “ When the 
character of the leading newspapers is considered 
(some honorable exceptions being excluded), sold as 
they are to party; how with many of them every 
principle yields to considerations of policy; how truth 
is suppressed or garbled, and falsehood unblushingly 
asserted; how villanous acts are palliated, and bad men 
praised; how the Constitution is contemned, and the law 
of nations and of war, as well as every dictate of our holy 
religion, disregarded; how opinions which to-day are ad¬ 
vocated, are repudiated on the morrow; we cannot help 
perceiving that the moral poison from this corrupted source 
must permeate the minds of those who make such matter 
their daily food, till at last the distinction between right 
and wrong is obliterated, and acts and opinions are justified, 
at which, a little while before, the conscience would have 
stood aghast, and with which we may hope it will still be 
shocked when the spell is broken.” Referring next to the 


12 


CAUSES OF OUR NATIONAL CALAMITIES, 

Mr. Fisher says, “ If it were necessary it would not be 
difficult to trace in the vices of our representative system, 
here exposed, the causes of our national calamities ; but 
we may accept as an established truth the utterance of the 
people’s voice, now heard in every quarter, that our politi¬ 
cal leaders are chiefly answerable for the cruel and unnat¬ 
ural war now rending every tie which common origin, a 
common religion, a common history, and nearer and dearer 
relations than these, had been forming since our ancestors 
sought on these shores a refuge from poverty and oppres¬ 
sion in other lands.” He then proceeds to show how 

DIVERSITIES OF CLIMATE AND OCCUPATION 

have been, and should continue to be, a bond of union 
between the North and the South. “It is a false 
assertion,” he observes, “ that our diversities of climate and 
occupation and domestic institutions necessarily dissociated 
us in feelings, in interests, and political objects; that we 
could not live together in peace. Never were national 
institutions better designed for harmonizing and maintain¬ 
ing a great people, and leading it on in a course of bound¬ 
less prosperity. Like the work of the Divine hand in the 
mechanism of the heavens, and the contrivances of organic 
life ; or, like the humbler work of man in the great engines 
of manufacturing industry, and the beautiful inventions of 
naval architecture, such was the fitness of our national and 
state institutions to work together, such the happy adapta¬ 
tion of checks and balances (some of the most important of 


13 


which consisted in the very contrariety of our occupations 
and form of property) that justice and equal rights were 
everywhere maintained; and it is incredible that our great 
republic should have subsisted for more than seventy years 
without these very differences.” 

“ From many a difficulty with foreign nations, from 
many an internal convulsion, from many a mischievous re¬ 
form, we have been saved by the opposing forces on one 
side or the other ; and if our financial policy has not always 
been wise or just, yet the sources of wealth were every 
where so great, the products of agriculture so various and 
abundant, and our manufacturing industry and commerce 
so enormous, that we became as a united nation the most 
self-sustaining people on earth; every department of labor 
furnishing and demanding the supplies of the other.” Af¬ 
ter alluding to the prejudices and jealousies on both sides, 
which broke up this happy state of things, he says, “ The 
opportunity was thus given, through our vicious system of 
representation, to a few leaders on both sides, whose aim 
was mastery or the disruption of the Union, to break up a 
government justly dear to great majorities in every division 
of our country, and to inaugurate a war the end of which 
no one can predict, — but which, whether it be the subju¬ 
gation and forced submission of the South, or the breaking 
up of our Confederacy, may, in its consequences, be almost 
equally deplorable. Under any circumstances, the work¬ 
ing machinery of our Constitution is broken down; the 
Government, as it is, cannot go on much longer.” 

“ What remedy is there ? 

Some persons seem to look to military despotism, which 
history shows has been the ordinary refuge of a people 


14 


from democratic misrule. But it is a desperate remedy, 
which nothing but anarchy can justify. It never can re¬ 
store a nation’s healthful vigor — only preserve a paralyzed 
existence. Our people are too good and sensible, too proud 
and brave for this. They ought to be able to choose their 
rulers ; and surely could do so, if our present miserable 
machinery of popular elections were cleared away.” 

Before noticing more particularly the plan of reform 
proposed by Mr. Fisher, it is proper to observe in reference 
to the originality of the views suggested by him, that he 
frankly admits that Mr. Thomas Hare (barrister at law, 
London,) was probably the first European writer who pub¬ 
lished to the world the true principle of popular elections. 
Mr. Hare himself states that his first treatise on the sub¬ 
ject was published soon after the general election in Eng¬ 
land, in 1857, and entitled, “ The Machinery of Represen¬ 
tationbut Mr. Fisher also claims that as early as 1857 
his scheme was drawn out in a full plan of voting, and that 
its formation may be dated back one or two years earlier. 
However this may be it will detract nothing from the merit 
of either of these gentlemen if it shall appear that the same 
idea has germinated in the mind of each, at the same 
period, without either being amenable to the charge of 
plagiarism; for such has ever been observed in the history 
of the world, when ingenious minds have been simultane¬ 
ously directed to the elucidation of any given question in 
politics, in science, or in art. 

The great principle on which rests Mr. Hare’s as well as 
Mr. Fisher’s plan of reform, is the undeniable right of 
minorities to be represented in every truly democratic sys¬ 
tem of government, ‘‘ pure democracy being,” as Mr. Hare 


15 


truly observes, “ the government of the whole people by 
the whole people, whilst false democracy is the govern¬ 
ment of the whole people by a mere majority of the peo¬ 
ple, acting through representives elected by that majority, 
the minority having no representative at all, and being, in 
fact, practically disfranchised.” 

Agreeing in the principle, they both propose to secure 
the same object, by providing that a certain number of 
votes shall be necessary to elect an individual to a legisla¬ 
tive assembly, — that number to be ascertained by dividing 
the whole number of registered voters by the number of 
representatives to be elected, the product of this division 
being the fixed constituency of each representative to be 
chosen; or in other Avords, the number of votes which he 
Avould be required to obtain in order to eiism'e his election. 
These votes the candidate should, however, be allowed to 
seek, not in his OAvn district alone, but anyAvhere in the 
state where he could find electors of kindred sentiments. 

Thus every individual elected would represent a totality ; 
that is, his constituency would be a unanimous one, com¬ 
posed entirely of those who had voted for him as their first 
choice, and who Avere Avilling to have him as the exponent 
and representative of their opinions in the national or state 
councils. The minority, or those opposed to him in his 
OAvn district, Avould combine with other minorities else¬ 
where, to an extent sufiicient to elect a candidate represent¬ 
ing their sentiments; and so on throughout the state, the 
result of Avhich Avould be that every voter Avould be repre¬ 
sented, and no vote necessarily throAvn aAvay. 

A congress or an assembly thus chosen would be a fair 
refiex of the voice of the people, for all parties would be 


16 


represented in the same proportion as to numbers as there 
might be divisions of sentiment among those entitled to the 
franchise. All questions would of course be decided in the 
legislative body by majorities, after each had exercised its 
undoubted right to 4 share in the discussions, and had an 
opportunity of presenting its views and arguments in the 
most forcible manner. 

“A greater tyranny cannot be conceived,” says Mr. Fish¬ 
er, “ than to force a large part of any population, even if it 
be only a minority, to commit the utterance of theu: wishes, 
and the guardianship of their interests in the national or 
state government, to a man they cannot trust, and whose 
enmity they have won by the bitterness of a party contest. 
In no way can this be avoided but by the adoption of some 
such system as the one proposed,” the advantages of which 
he sums up as follows. 

“All would vote on terms of perfect equality, the electors 
uniting voluntarily in the choice of members of their own 
selection. No vote would be nullified. Frauds in elections 
would be impossible, nor could any question of electoral 
returns come before the legislature, to be decided as it al¬ 
ways is, by a strictly party vote. Political caucusses would 
be disused, and an end put to primary elections; which 
together form a system so full of fraud, and so incapable 
of correction, that it must be destroyed or it will utterly 
eradicate all public virtue, entirely undermme every prin¬ 
ciple upon which free institutions are based, and leave us 
nothing but the knife to eradicate the cancer in our body 
politic, with small hope indeed of surviving the operation.” 

“ If our electoral system, working with such disastrous 
effect for more than one generation, has not altogether de- 


17 


graded us as a nation, rendering it nearly impossible for a 
high-minded man to enter into politics, or soon destroying 
his sense of honor by the associations and practices he 
must tolerate ; and leaving no other course for honest am¬ 
bition but the acquisition of money, a career itself most 
sadly corroding to the higher sentiments of our nature; if 
there is still among us a class of independent patriotic gen¬ 
tlemen ; or printers, shoemakers, and blacksmiths like the 
Franklins, Shermans, and Greenes of our Revolution, such 
a system as the one proposed would give them place in our 
national councils, and invest them with authority to speak 
as no other representatives could speak, with honesty and 
boldness, fearing no reproach, and checked by no base 
party considerations ; representing totalities, they would be 
sure to be sustained while they supported the true interests 
of their constituents; truckling in nothing to those they 
despised, they would legislate, according to their conscien¬ 
tious convictions, for the good of their country; and when 
the decision on a great question was made, all would sub¬ 
mit to the will of the real majority of the nation, speaking 
by their true delegates.” 

This, indeed, as Mr. Fisher truly observes, may be char¬ 
acterized as “ a scheme to retrieve the honor and honesty 
of our legislative assemblies, the corruption and degrada¬ 
tion of which is the disease our republic is dying of. Some¬ 
thing,” he says, “ must be done, or our institutions will 
speedily perish.” 

Being of one accord in the general principle, Mr. Hare 
and Mr. Fisher also agree that every voter should be 
supplied by the Registrar with a voting ticket, on which, 
according to Mr. Hare’s plan, he is to inscribe the name 


3 


18 


of the person he would prefer as his representative, and 
^dd from the whole list of candidates previously published 
the names of those he would select as his second and 
third choice, and as many more as he pleases, — the votes 
to be given locally, as at present, but any elector to be at 
liberty to vote for any candidate, in whatever part of the 
state he might offer himself. In the event of a popular 
candidate receiving the suffrages of a larger number of 
electors than is required, the excess to be transferred, as 
each voter might dhect in his ticket, from one candidate 
to another. 

Mr. Fisher objects to this mode of voting as complicated 
and unmanagable, requiring an army of clerks, and as 
opening the door to great frauds and corruption. In short, 
he says that this plan, if practicable in England, would 
be utterly impossible here. 

It appears, however, that Mr. Hare, in a later edition of 
his work, has satisfactorily met these and other objections 
to his scheme, and explained more fully the practical work¬ 
ing of it. Mr. Fisher’s plan of voting will now be given 
in his own words. 

“After providing the electors with voting tickets so pre¬ 
pared as to guard against forgery or alteration,” he says, 
“ This voting certificate is understood to be not only an 
authority to the citizen to give his ballot at the polls, but 
a ticket to be assigned to the candidate of his choice, in 
writing, before an officer appointed for such purpose, as 
for instance, a notary public, at any time within ten days 
of the election, either at the notary’s office, or in case of 
inability from sickness, at the house of the elector.” In 
case more votes were offered than were needed to make up 


19 


the complement of a representative, he proposes that they 
should be passed over, by the advice of the member elect, 
or his canvassing committee, to some other candidate rep¬ 
resenting similar interests or principles ; but surely it would 
be better to allow the voters themselves to designate their 
preferences, as proposed by Mr. Hare. 

In order to get rid of primary meetings and all their 
abominations, Mr. Fisher proposes that “ any body of re¬ 
spectable citizens, whose names and position might be 
expected to give weight to their recommendation, might 
meet in public or private, and nominate a candidate to rep¬ 
resent themselves and all others with whom they were 
united in interest, or in questions of public policy. Thus 
we may suppose the great industrial divisions of our coun¬ 
try, the commercial, manufacturing, agricultural, or mining 
interests would present their separate candidates ; selecting 
from among men of the highest ability in the country, those 
who would best sustain then cause in the public councils of 
the nation, leaving them unpledged in other matters.” 

OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF VOTEKS. 

On this point Mr. Fisher expresses himself thus: “ It 
has been thought by many, who have based their opinion 
on this result, that an electoral system which has tended, 
and still tends, more and more, to exclude from office the 
best men, and to place in our national and state legislatures 
a body of political intriguers, among whom corruption is 
so prevalent as to cease to be a reproach, must have its 
radical vice in the character of the constituency; that in 
fact the suffrage is too widely extended, and that some 


20 


means must be found to limit it by a qualification of pro¬ 
perty, especially in land. ‘ Those who own the country,’ 
say they, ‘ should govern the country.’ But there is good 
reason for asserting, that under a republican government the 
first principle should be to extend the suffrage to all who 
can appreciate it as an obligation, and value it as a privi¬ 
lege. No inhabitants, as a class, however humble, should 
be debarred from an easy acquisition of the right; but in 
order to give the electoral privilege a value to its possessor, 
he must owe it to some effort of his own, or have inherited 
it from a worthy parent. It must be something which the 
idle profligate vagabond, the criminal, the brawler, and the 
sot, have forfeited, or never acquund. This prerogative of 
^ citizenship he should hold as an honor, a badge of respecta¬ 
bility ; and every man worthy of possessing it would gladly 
work for it, and try to use it to his own real advantage and 
honor, and if so, to that of the community. The only real 
tests we have for this qualification are material ones; but 
they may, and ought to be, within the reach of any indus¬ 
trious man, and should be various in form, in order to give 
no undue advantage to any kind of property or department 
of industry ; thus, — 

The possession or lease of a small portion of cultivated 
land. 

The sole tenancy of a dwelling-house, 

A small investment in public stocks. 

The previous year’s service in a salaried employment. 
Or a poll tax to the value, at least, of a bushel of 
wheat, or a day’s labor. 

These, or such as these, would give some guarantee of 
respectability, and the greater the number who could pre- 


21 


sent themselves with such qualifications, the sounder and 
safer would be our republican institutions.” 

Mr. Fisher’s suggestions are very valuable, and he is 
entitled to the thanks of the public for having been the 
first, perhaps, to venture so boldly, in public, upon the 
subject of electoral reform. The evil is, indeed, one of 
unparalleled magnitude; the fate of the nation is involved 
in it, but unless attacked and exposed wdth the fearless¬ 
ness and zeal of a Luther or a Calvin, it will never be 
corrected. 

Having thus briefiy treated of the ingenious plans of 
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Hare for securing the rights of minor¬ 
ities, let us call in the testimony of “ the most elaborated 
mind of our age,” to prove that something more remains to 
be done to counteract the evils of 

CLASS LEGISLATION. 

“ Democracy,” says J. Stuart Mill, in his admirable work on 
E-epresentative Government, “ is not the ideally best form, 
of government, unless this weak side of it can be strength¬ 
ened ; unless it can be so organized that no class, not even 
the most numerous, shall be able to reduce all but itself to 
political insignificance, and direct the course of legislation 
and administration by its exclusive class interest. The 
problem is, to find the means of preventing this abuse 
without sacrificing the characteristic advantages of popular 
government.” 

Mr. Mill, however, advocates no limitation of the suf¬ 
frage, involving the compulsory exclusion of any portion 
of the citizens from a voice in the representation, believ- 


22 


ing as he does, that ‘‘the exercise of political franchises, 
even by manual laborers, is a potent instrument of mental 
improvement,” in support of which he calls to witness the 
entire contents of M. de Tocqueville’s great work; and 
especially his estimate of the Americans. “Almost all 
travellers,” says Mr. Mill, “ are struck by the fact, that 
every American is in some sense both a patriot and a 
person of cultivated intelligence; and M. de Tocqueville 
has shown how close the connection is between these 
qualities and their democratic institutions. No such wide 
diffusion of the ideas, tastes, and sentiments of educated 
minds has ever been seen elsewhere, or even conceived of 
as attainable. Yet this is nothing to what we might look 
for in a government equally democratic in its unexclusive¬ 
ness, but better organized in other important points. For, 
political life in America is indeed a most valuable school; 
but it is a school from which the ablest teachers are 
excluded; the first minds in the country being as effectu¬ 
ally shut out from the national representation, and from 
public functions generally, as if they were under a formal 
disqualification. The demos, too, being in America the 
one source of power, all the selfish ambition of the 
country gravitates towards it, as it does in despotic 
countries towards the monarch; — the people, like the 
despot, is pursued with adulation and sycophancy, and the 
corrupting effects of power fully keep pace with its im¬ 
proving and ennobling influences. If, even with this 
alloy, democratic institutions produce so marked a superi¬ 
ority of mental development in the lowest class of 
Americans, compared with the corresponding classes in 
England and elsewhere, what would it be if the good 


23 


portion of the influence could be retained without the 
bad ? And this, to a certain extent, may be done ; but 
not by excluding that portion of the people who have 
fewest intellectual stimuli of other kinds from so inestima¬ 
ble an introduction to large, distant, and complicated 
interests as is afforded by the attention they may be 
induced to bestow on political affairs.” Mr. Mill then 
goes on to show how political discussions enlarge and 
improve the minds, even of manual laborers, wherever 
they are possessed of the franchise, and how unjust it is to 
withhold from any one, unless for the prevention of 
greater evils, the ordinary privilege of having his voice 
reckoned in the disposal of affairs in which he has the 
same interest as other people. ‘‘ If he is compelled to 
pay, if he may be compelled to fight, if he is required 
implicitly to obey, he should be legally entitled to be told 
what for; to have his consent asked, and his opinion 
counted at its worth, though not at more than its worth.” 
In short, Mr. Mill is decidedly of the opinion that the 
electoral privilege should be open to all persons of full 
age who desire to obtain it. He then adds, “ There are, 
however, certahi exclusions, required by positive reasons, 
which do not conflict with this principle, and which, 
though an evil in themselves, are only to be got rid of by 
the cessation of the state of things which requires them. 
I regard it as wholly inadmissible that any person should 
participate in the suffrage, without being able to read, 
write, and, I will add, perform the common# operations of 
arithmetic. It would be easy,” he says, ‘‘ to require 
from every one who presented himself for registry, that he 
should, in the presence of the registrar, copy a sentence 


24 


from an English book, and perform a sum in the rule of 
three. It is also important,” he continues, “ that the 
assembly which votes the taxes, either general or local, 
should be elected exclusively by those who pay something 
towards the taxes imposed. Those who pay no taxes, 
disposing by their votes of other people’s money, have 
every motive to be lavish, and none to economize. As far 
as money matters are concerned, any power of voting 
possessed by them, is a violation of the fundamental prin¬ 
ciple of free government, a severance of the power of 
control from the interest in its beneficial exercise. It 
amounts to allowing them to put their hands into other 
people’s pockets for any purpose which they think fit to 
call a public one ; which in some of the great towns in 
the United States is known to have produced a scale of 
local taxation onerous beyond example, and wholly borne 
by the wealthier classes.” 

He favors the imposition “ of a dhect tax, in the simple 
form of a capitation, on every grown person in the com¬ 
munity ; or that every such person should be admitted an 
elector, on allowing himself to be rated extra ordinem to 
the assessed taxes; or that a small annual payment, 
rising and falling with the gross expenditure of the 
country, should be required from every registered elector ; 
that so every one might feel that the money which he 
assisted in voting was partly his own, and that he was 
interested in keeping down its amount.” 

Pauperism,, or the receipt of parish relief, he thinks 
should be a peremptory disqualification for the franchise. 
Strongly advocating universal suffrage, he adds, ‘‘ Yet in 
this state of things, the great majority of voters, in most 


25 


countries, and emphatically in England, would be manual 
laborers; and the twofold danger, that of too low a 
standard of political intelligence, and that of class legisla¬ 
tion, would still exist in a very perilous degree. It 
remains to be seen whether any means exist by which 
these evils can be obviated.” 

PLURAL VOTING, 

he thinks, is the proper remedy. “ Whilst admitting,” he 
says, ‘‘ that every one ought to have a voice, tha/every one 
• should have an equal voice, is a totally different proposition. 
No one,” he continues, “ need ever be called upon for a com¬ 
plete sacrifice of his own opinion. It can always be taken 
into the calculation and counted at a certain figure, a higher 
figure being assigned to the suffrages of those whose 
opinion is entitled to greater weight. There is not, in 
this arrangement, anything necessarily invidious to those 
to whom it assigns the lower degrees of influence. Entire 
exclusion from a voice in the common concerns, is one 
thing; the concession to others of a more potential voice, 
on the ground of greater capacity for the management of 
the joint interests, is another. The two things are not 
merely different, they are incommensurable. Every one 
has a right to feel insulted by being made a nobody, and 
stamped as of no account at all. No one but a fool — and 
only a fool of a peculiar description — feels offended by 
the acknowledgment that there are others whose opinion, 
and even whose wish, is entitled to a greater amount of 
consideration than his.” 

Discarding, as entirely inadmissible, unless as a tempo¬ 
rary makeshift, the principle that the superiority of infiu- 


4 


26 


ence should be conferred in consideration of property, on 
the ground that such a criterion would be imperfect, as 
well as supremely odious, he proceeds to lay down the 
broad principle that individual mental superiority is the 
only thing that can justify plural voting^ or allowing two 
or more votes, in certain cases, to a single individual. 
“ What is wanted,” says Mr. Mill, “ is some approximate 
means of ascertaining that mental superiority. If there 
existed such a thing as a really national education, or a 
trustworthy system of general examination, education 
might be tested directly. In the absence of these, the 
nature of a person’s occupation is some test. An em¬ 
ployer of labor is, on the average, more intelligent than a 
laborer; for he must labor with his head, and not solely 
with his hands. A foreman is generally more intelligent 
than an ordinary laborer, and a laborer in the skilled 
trades more than one in the unskilled. A banker, mer¬ 
chant, or manufacturer, is likely to be more intelligent 
than a tradesman, because he has larger and more com¬ 
plicated interests to manage.” 

“ In all these cases it is not the havmg merely under¬ 
taken the superior function, but the successful perform¬ 
ance of it, that tests the qualifications ; for which reason, 
as well as to prevent persons from engaging nominally m 
an occupation for the sake of the vote, it would be proper 
to require that the occupation should have been perse¬ 
vered in for some length of time — say three years. 
Subject to some such condition, two or more votes might 
be allowed to every person who exercises any of these 
superior functions. The liberal professions, when really 
and not nominally practiced, imply, of course, a still 


27 


higher degree of instruction, and wherever a sufficient 
examination, or any serious conditions of examination, are 
required before entering on a profession, its members 
could be admitted at once to a plurality of votes. The 
same rule might be applied to graduates of universities; 
and even to those who bring satisfactory certificates of 
having passed through the course of study required by 
any school, at which the higher branches of knowledge 
are taught, under proper securities that the teaching is 
real, and not a mere pretence.” 

“All these suggestions are open to much discussion in 
the detail, and to objections which it is of no use to antici¬ 
pate. The time is not come for giving to such plans a 
practical shape, nor should I wish to be bound by the 
particular proposals which I have made. But it is to me 
evident, that in this direction lies the true ideal of Bepre- 
sentative Government; and that to work towards it, by 
the best practical contrivances which can be found, is the 
path of real political improvement. The plurality of 
votes must on no account be carried so far, that those who 
are privileged by it, or the class — if any — to which they 
mainly belong, shall outweigh by means of it all the rest 
of the community. The distinction in favor of education, 
right in itself, is further and strongly recommended by its 
preserving the educated from the class legislation of the 
uneducated; but it must stop short of enabling them to 
practice class legislation on their own account. Let me 
add, that I consider it an absolutely necessary part of the 
plurality scheme, that it be open to the poorest individual 
in the community to claim its privileges, if he can prove, 
by voluntary examination, that, in spite of all difficulties 


28 


and obstacles, he is, in point of intelligence, entitled to 

them.”.“ Until there shall have been devised, 

and until opinion is willing to accept, some mode of plural 
voting which may assign to education, as such, the degree 
of superior influence due to it, and sufficient as a counter¬ 
poise to the numerical weight of the least educated class ; 
for so long, the benefits of completely universal suffrage 
cannot be obtained, without bringing with them, as it 

appears to me, more than equivalent evils.”. 

“ So much importance do I attach to the emancipation of 
those who already have votes, but whose votes are useless, 
because always outnumbered; so much should I hope 
from the natural influence of truth and reason, if only 
secured a hearing and a competent advocacy, that I 
should not despair of the operation even of equal and 
universal suffrage, if made real by the proportional repre¬ 
sentation of all minorities, on Mr. Hare’s principle. But 
if the best hopes which can be formed on this subject 
were certainties, I should still contend for the principle of 
plural voting.” 

This review would not be complete without giving a 
place to Mr. Fisher’s remarks on our 


MODE OF NOMINATING AND CHOOSING OUR HIGHEST MAGIS¬ 
TRATE, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 

where, he says, “ the greatest perversions of our electoral 
system will be found.” 

“ In the first place,” he observes, “ we have a primary 
meeting, organized and managed as those for common 
elections, from which proceed delegates to a state caucus. 




29 


This caucus appoints to the national party convention 
men with whom they can make the best bargain for them¬ 
selves. The next step is the party nomination for presi¬ 
dent the most important of all, taken under circumstances 
the most adverse possible to a good selection. Then the 
state election by a doubtful majority, in which citizens have 
only a choice between the nominees of the great parties. 
Finally, a meeting of the electoral colleges, for dumb show 
and a dictated vote, — and this is the nation’s choice for its 
highest office, in many respects an uncontrolled dictatorship 
for four years. And who is the nation’s choice for its 
highest officeA man of the finest abilities, the noblest 
character, the most distinguished services'? No! The 
man who is admitted to be superior to all, even though he 
be leader of one of the great parties, will probably lose the 
nomination of his own political allies, which will be given 
instead, to some obscure politician of moderate abilities 
and doubtful integrity. The reason is, that the former is 
not, and the latter is, an available candidate. A leading 
statesman has excited jealousy, has committed himself to 
certain principles, has a settled policy and a firm will, and 
is not to ]^e dictated to. He cannot be moulded by those 
who manage the nomination, will not engage to be their 
tool, or to place in their hands his official patronage. Pie 
has his own confidential adherents, and will select his ad¬ 
visers and high officers from among them. He is, in a 
word, too proud a man to truckle to these party managers, 
and too honest a one to buy his election by the spoils of 
political victory. Such a man will not do.” 

“An available candidate maybe one who has some source 
of popularity independent of political services. A rough 


30 


and honest soldier, a rude backwoodsman who has raised 
himself from the humblest condition, has sometimes fairer 
claims to popularity than the statesman who has passed 
through a life of political intrigue. In such cases the cor¬ 
ruptions and malversations of a preceding administration 
may have rendered statesmanship a suspicious qualifica¬ 
tion ; and a reputation for honesty would, therefore, have 
the more infiuence, while the rude tastes and jovial habits 
of the candidate, in former life, might become additional 
sources of popularity. Those who look out for such a 
candidate to offer to the people, do not, on their own ac¬ 
count, particularly desire ability, and for them honesty may 
be a very inconvenient quality if allied with unreasonable 
firmness. They would rather rely on inexperience to sub¬ 
mit in every thing to their guidance, and indeed such a 
candidate must naturally rely upon the friends to whom he 
owes his success, and gladly promises to make all appoint¬ 
ments by their advice. A bargain is therefore made, which, 
if he be an honest man, he will bitterly repent, and woe to 
him if he break it.” 

**#*#*# 

“It is, unhappily, no defamation to assert th^ through 
the whole process of our presidential nominations, from 
the primary meeting, which selects a member for the state 
caucus, up to the final vote in the electoral college, there 
is an uninterrupted intrigue and traffic for office and emol¬ 
ument, till by a triple distillation of corruption, we have 
presented to us as a result, the only possible successor of 
George Washington! It cannot be necessary to prove 
this to any one who has watched the progress of a presi¬ 
dential canvass, if that is the proper name for a system con- 


31 


trived to render impossible the intelligent selection and 
the honest choice of the whole people.” 

‘‘ There still remains to be noticed the most monstrous 
perversion of the original design, — 

THE GENEKAL TICKET, 

a system which would seem to have been contrived for 
the express purpose of throwing the nomination into the 
hands of the veriest political sharpers in the great states, 
to stifle all adverse majorities in the several counties of 
these states, to override the electoral colleges in the smaller 
states, and eventually to place in oflice a man who has 
only a minority of the popular votes, — it might be only a 
small minority, — and sometimes, as in our last disastrous 
election, to give us a purely sectional candidate, elected by 
a bare plurality. It is unnecessary to make further refer¬ 
ence to the mode in which are chosen the delegates to the 
great national party convention for nominating a president, 
or to describe the character of those who compose it, or 
the influences which prevail there. It is notorious that 
the delegation of each state is managed and directed by 
one or more skilful tacticians, who have other things in 
view besides the honor of their country, and who well 
know how to secure, at the same time, every party and 
personal advantage. A man who can offer the entire state 
ticket, of twenty or thirty votes, has carte-blanche for him¬ 
self and his friends.” 

Mr. Fisher suggests various reforms in our mode of elect¬ 
ing the president, in the qualifications for the oflice, and 
in the limitation of its patronage, as will appear in the fol¬ 
lowing extracts. 


32 


“ If the system of nominating and electing proposed in 
this essay for members of Congress could be applied,” he 
states, “ to the choice of presidential electors, we might 
reasonably hope for the creation of electoral colleges, con¬ 
sisting of men of character and influence, not the nominees 
of politicians, or the representatives of party; and in that 
case we should have an efiectual realization of the views 
of those great and patriotic men who framed our Constitu¬ 
tion, and whose work has been so lamentably perverted by 
their descendants. If we adopt the present basis and pro¬ 
portion of electoral votes, every elector, corresponding to 
the representative in Congress, must, in the same way, ob¬ 
tain a totality vote, and the two senatorial electors (as they 
are sometimes called) might be chosen by the legislatures 
of each state; thus varying the mode of election, and giv¬ 
ing another chance for a good choice.” 

“ When assembled in the electoral colleges each elector 
should give his independent vote, to be counted as such in 
the general return, — the object being, as before stated, to 
frustrate the intrigues of state politicians, and render a 
sectional candidate impossible.” Should the election fail, 
owing to the great number of candidates, he proposes that 
a new election should be had, with the choice narrowed 
down to the three candidates who had obtained the highest 
number of votes at the previous election, which he thinks 
would be safer than to trust the second election to the 
house of representatives, as in our jwesent system. 

Two other modes of electing the president are sug¬ 
gested, if the one just stated should appear objectionable; 
viz., “We might return,” he says, “to the system of 
separate district elections; when, if a majority of two- 


33 


thirds were required in each district, we would approach a 
perfect expression of the national preference, which never 
can be obtained with the general ticket.” Or, the duty 
might be safely trusted to the state legislatures, provided 
the members have been elected on the principle of totality 
representation^ and the following plan of voting were 
adopted. “ Let the members of both houses of the legis¬ 
lature be divided by the number of presidential electors to 
which the state is entitled, and the quotient might repre¬ 
sent the number of members to whom might be committed 
the choice of one presidential elector, the members com¬ 
bining according to their affinities for that purpose. 
Thus, supposing the number of presidential electors allot¬ 
ted to any state were thirty, the number of the state 
senate fifty, and that of the lower house one hundred. 
If we divide the united number one hundred and fifty by 
thirty, the quotient five will represent the members of the 
legislature having a right to combine and choose one 
presidential elector. It will be perceived that in this way 
there will be an opportunity given to all the different 
interests and political opinions, as represented in the 
legislature, to combine in parties of five, and choose one 
elector of their own principles; and the rights of minori¬ 
ties would, in this way, be effectually secured.” Any 
difficulty arising from the number of members not afford¬ 
ing an equal dividend, so as to leave no fractions, could 
be obviated by the addition of two or three members 
expressly for the occasion, by nomination of the governor, 
or by an election of both houses.” 

He next proposes to limit the selection of candidates for 
the presidency to citizens who had qualified themselves 


6 


34 


for the office, by high and distinguished service elsewhere, 
viz., by service in the United-States Senate for at least two 
years, which, it is thought,.would be attended with the dou¬ 
ble advantage of increasing the dignity and importance of 
that body, and of securing to the presidential candidate some 
experience, not only in legislation, but in statesmanship, 
while acting as a special adviser of the executive in diplo¬ 
matic matters, and in considering his nominations for the 
great offices. He further suggests that “ the liberty of 
selection might be extended to all who had filled the 
offices of governors of the federated states, and, perhaps, 
to some other high officials, especially in the judiciary, 
providing only that they are not in office at the time of 
their nomination, the object being to secure ability and 
integrity, proved in the previous tenure of office.” 

Nor would Mr. Fisher exclude the naval and military 
professions from a chance of selection for the highest 
national honors. “ The attainments and ex*perience of 
educated officers of both these professions would,” he 
justly remarks, “ often be invaluable in the committees 
to which are assigned the affairs of war; while the 
knowledge of the world, of which many have seen much, 
and their high tone and bearing, would be a most deska- 
ble infusion into our legislative assemblies. If officers of 
the army and navy could be elected to Congress without 
resigning or losing grade in the service (merely relin¬ 
quishing, for the time, their pay and their progressive 
seniority), they would form a great addition to our 
legislative strength; and if appointed by their own states 
to a place in the national senate, they would thus be 
placed in the rank of candidates ; and should the voice of 


35 


the electoral colleges call them to the presidential chair, 
they would not come into office without some experience 
in the trade of statesmanship.” 

With regard to the patronage of office, and its influence 
on elections, which Mr. Fisher characterizes as one of the 
greatest evils in our land, he thinks the president, as the 
great executive head of the nation, ought to he placed 
above such a miserable business. “ The highest function¬ 
aries of state, the cabinet officers, and the foreign repre¬ 
sentatives of the country must be under his control; but 
the great departments of the army, navy, and treasury 
might be entirely committed to permanent boards ; at 
which, if desired, the ministers of state might preside, but 
which might safely be trusted to All the places for which 
they best know the qualiflcations.” 

“ There should be no power of removal given to the 
president over the great departmental boards, except for 
misconduct or incompetence, verified before the senate; 
and the appointment of the inferior officers in their 
departments, including the whole military service, if re¬ 
quiring the assent of the minister at its head, should be 
ever after beyond his control, except for similar causes.” 

“A peremptory dismissal of a cabinet officer or his 
confldential clerks is a necessary power. A temporary 
suspension from office might be conceded to the great 
departmental boards, or perhaps to their heads. A power 
of recall from foreign missions may be necessary, but 
always to be submitted with statement of causes to the 
senate. Here all control over the tenure of office should 
end. Official integrity — the faithful and intelligent per¬ 
formance of duty — requires it; above all, the relief of 


36 


our electoral system from the most extensive and flagrant 
corruption demands it. In no other country than ours are 
all the officials liable to displacement on each popular 
election; and in no other country on earth, is there such 
incompetence among them. The nomination of the fede¬ 
ral judiciary must, of course, be left to the executive; 
but if confirmation required a three-fourths vote of the 
senate, the appointment would he taken out of party 
politics ; while, if the courts had the power of temporarily 
supplying vacancies on then’ own benches, they would 
effectually stop all factious opposition to a good appoint¬ 
ment.” 

With a president elected in the mode recommended, 
and subject to the qualifications and restrictions suggested, 
“ personal dignity,” as Mr. Fisher observes, “ might always 
be expected, for his selection would surely be made from 
the first men of the nation, and his associates could never 
be degrading. No rowdy ruffian with his troop of bullies 
could march triumphantly in the inaugural cortege, or 
force himself as a guest into the presidential mansion ; no 
base intriguer could claim his patronage in reward for 
services disgraceful to both. While claiming no preroga¬ 
tive of birth, no advantages from wealth, rising as he 
might well do from humble rank by successive stages of 
merit, he would prove to the world that the widest de¬ 
mocracy can produce a gentleman, and knows how to 
honor him.” 

The last of the wise reforms suggested by Mr. Fisher, is 
one to diminish the frequency of elections. ‘‘ Hardly is 
one election closed,” says he, “ before plans are laid for 
another. The defeated party at once begins its assaults 


37 


upon the newly-elected member, and both prepare, with 
increased animosity, for a new contest. This constant 
excitement is most unfavorable to a sound condition of the 
public mind on political subjects; and moreover, as all 
citizens cannot give their time to this incessant political 
warfare and intrigue, the work must needs be done by the 
mercenary army of politicians of all grades, which our 
vicious system has created and must continue to foster.” 
He proposes to extend the term of office both of our chief 
magistrate and also of our political assemblies, to which 
he thinks there could be no objection, if the system of 
electing by totalities were adopted. “A member so elect¬ 
ed,” he says, “ would have no enemies in the rear, no 
battles to tight at home; he would represent the whole 
body of his constituents ; his selection would be the very 
expression of their wishes; he would be sure to take 
counsel with them and for them, and to defend all their 
rights and interests. The president elect would be the 
choice of a real majority of the nation, — not nominated 
by intriguers, but selected by men most capable of judging 
of ability and worth, and raised to office for merits and 
services proved in other capacities. In both cases power 
might be safely trusted, for it would not be abused. In 
both a prolongation of office would not only be convenient 
but deshable.” 

Mr. Fisher’s essay is worthy of the highest commenda¬ 
tion, and will attract great attention when the time 
arrives, as it surely will, for the discussion of these great 
matters. He is right when he says that every citizen who 
thinks he can say aught that will promote the good of his 
country, in times of doubt and difficulty, should give 


38 


utterance to the results of his reflections. Mr. Fisher has 
well performed that duty, and is (mtitled to the gratitude 
of his countrymen for the valuable thoughts and sug¬ 
gestions with which his essay abornds, and which, it is to 
be hoped, will turn other minds into similar trains of 
thought, to the end that the reforms herein shown to be 
so much needed may be realized in the way which may 
appear most practicable and most efiicient. 











I. ■ 




< 


i 

<• 


r 





I 









9 


I 


i 





t 


m 



* 


I 

I 


4 


t 



I 


^ ' * 



». . 



1 


t 





A «at I 




I 


f 


9 


1 


N 







« 




1 

• ' ‘ * 


# 




'r 




I 


<1 


\ 



I 


t 


•» 


n ■ 

I' 

I«. 


t 


» 


' 4 




I 


> 


<• 


S ) 
• . 

\ ■ 


I 

m 

1 I 


I 


I 






i 


w 








r •* 




A:*'- 


r 


I • 


' / 







o 

o <\ 'o,*- G^ ^ <:\ 



o 

o'’ \.''* y 



♦ / • 

*' '^o 

<-°^ ‘!4v! ■’-■ "^°-. 

C *,555^^^ a. ^ 

O *> 


^ o N 0 ^ O ^ e , 1 “ .0 

v^ CV .0^ .* 

- /^V/k^' C^*^ 

2 




v’ 

^ r\ 




















o A ^ » 



. » ^ cy 

"o • * '* 

^ ^ U c ° O 

< VA Q^ ® 

o ^ ^ ^ ,,,^ ^ 

^ fv> * 7/<dK ^ 



!^! ^ ■. * 




O « A 




^ ^ <L^" O 

■^^ * ° " ° °'^ ^ " ’' 

-v '•^ V p ’' * ®- o 

: ^vpv 

/ ^ A . 

" ^'*«s^ A <v 

0 ^ 0 N o ^ ^ ^ 

C • o .A A * ^ ^ 



. S ^ V^ <> ' 

A '^'#> 

< N ^rff/yp^ ^ ^. 

3 r\ ci^ ^ - 

o N o " AJ, 

CN^ s ^ ^ A V 




^ A 


■* ". 


C • o 






.,o«* / -o ‘3-’%o^ 


A 




• A vP 
•fc A » 




„ ,A ^ 

■<?*« (A 

O d^ to 

, v/' b ® 



> . ( 



lew N. MANCHESTER. 


_ _ . ^Mr.^ . o 

r\ ^ ' N~ ^ *• 

^ /% ✓ rt* * <L^ ^ ^ 

A° V *<.»«’ A o 

■' ^ 


• ^ A^ 

** 

‘ A 

A V 0 W G ^ 

0 • O 

tA 








» i T 


0 " s^M'^ V' o 


If 


• ^ A 


0^ 







































